Now I remember why I don't own a TV. This cable service is charging you $240 for what you could get for under $150. Phone, DSL, and cable locally only cost (added together) about $110.
This is probably just a ploy so they can lower the price and have people react positively. "Oh, we were crazy, no one will pay $240. We lowered it to $120."
For the amount they are asking, I would want to have on demand TV with no commercials.
When I try to explain open source to people who are pure capitalist, I have a hard to time explaining what can be gained. For people who are used to the concepts of Copyright and Patents, the idea that you can create value and profit from giving away ideas seems counter intuative.
How do you explain Open Source to people driven by profit in a persuasive way?
I wasn't being humourous. You're situation is not normal and most people will not have this type of injury practicing Aikido.
There are risks in all physical activities, and Aikido is no exception. Arts like Ju Jitsu have much higher injury rates, and there are "softer" and "harder" forms of Aikido.
In short, YMMV, but Aikido is a great way to help your wrists...
Aikido focuses on joint locks, which include wrist locks. After taking Aikido you will quickly have wrists that can withstand the rigors of typing. Flexible wrists are the key to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome, IMO, and Aikido is the key to flexible wrists.
ZeoSync said its scientific team had succeeded on a small scale in compressing random information sequences in such a way as to allow the same data to be compressed more than 100 times over -- with no data loss. That would be at least an order of magnitude beyond current known algorithms for compacting data.
ZeoSync announced today that the "random data" they were referencing is string of all zero's. Technically this could be produced randomly and our algorythm reduces this to just a couple of characters, a 100 times compression!!
I can't seem to make him my friend. Much like the unknown comic from the Gong Show whom I thought was a nice guy, you can't really get to know him until they take the bag off their head.
I've never seen a product that couldn't be upgraded. Even if a failed company released it's software for free, smart people could make money by upgrading it to market demand. Having a code base is invaluable.
What about competition would be bad for the surviving competitors of the failed company?
I myself prefer Windows for home use (it's all about the games) and Unix (solaris8 to be specific) for work development.
What does the number of games on a system have to do with the merits of the OS? Nothing.
Would you really be singing the praises of the MacOS if it had more games? This is the kind of backwards thinking that keeps WinOS with it's market share. You're not enthralled with Windows, you're enthralled with it's marketing!
Someone at MS marketing is a genious. How can you say no to giving free software and computers to the poorest children in the country?
I'm so disgusted by this prospect I can hardly hold back the bial.
How can Americans take this abuse? It's rediculous. This isn't a remedy to Microsoft's monopoly, it's a ploy to give the remain state's lawyers a way to exit this case while leaving MS with almost no pain. What's it really costing MS to print up some more software and give it away? Nothing. In fact it grows their business.
This whole case has stunk badly since the new administration took over and there's little hope that it will start smelling like a rose now.
"All the photographers shooting with digital thought: "ah, a nothing shot" and deleted it."
Rediculous. This isn't a failing of the technology, it's a failing of the photographer. If a photographer deletes his pictures, he's only injuring himself... in the same way that a film photographer who throws out his film would be. You can't blame digital photography for this, you blame the lack of an archive aware photographer.
Many professional photographers have more than one camera body, sometimes for different films, but mostly for backup. If you're on an important shoot, you need backup. If you're shooting with a film camera, that's easy. If you're shooting with digital, that means some way of backing up your memory cards. Which generally means a laptop.
If you're shooting on film you have no backup. Ever. You can't shoot two film strips at once. The fact that you can make a back of digital shots is a major bonus for the digital format.
Memory sticks are lighter than film per shot. They are as easily protected (they don't spoil in light), and their major elemental foe, magnetic fields, are not normally found in jungles.
You say that photograhers take backup cameras, and I agree, even digital photographers do it.
The digital storage itself, though, perhaps ought to make us nervous.
Don't confuse digital storage with magnetic media. Storage on CD will last as long as any photo or negative.
While magnetic media will eventually fail, other digitial media can and will last as long as any other physical media.
Maybe you should read it.
on
Torvalds Tells All
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Therefore those skilled in warfare move the enemy, and are not moved by the enemy.
-=-=-
The ultimate skill is to take up a position where you are formless.
If you are formless, the most penetrating spies will not be able to discern you, or the wisest counsels will not be able to do calculations against you.
It would be nice if there was an "AOL" client, perhaps based on linux, that was user friendly. It would never boot into windows, just into AOL. I can see a freestanding unit costing under $100 (and perhaps, eventually, given for free to subscibers) that allowed users to login and navigate AOL specifically. Such a unit would increase AOL marketshare.
So AOL could be Linux's killer app... but it wouldn't be from Linuz hackers.
Microsoft's integration on the OS level is just being used to leverage an advantage. Applauding their supposed innovation ingores the obvious problems of single providers. Let's take music as an example.
If we assumed that Microsoft would integrate music into their OS, then no other company would be foolish enough to create a music solution. It would crash and burn before the might of Microsoft. (There is the possibility that many companies might attempt to be bought out by Microsoft... but this is a different issue.)
Now with only Microsoft as a provider, we are hindered by one development path. No one will innovate because there is no profit in innovation if Microsoft can simply copy what you have with an army of programmers.
The end result is a single attempt at a solution where everyone must use Microsofts results regardless of merit.
Contrast this to a system where the OS level is simply a layer and a music solution could be created by anyone and you see quickly that competition would give a better result. With many developers taking risks for the possiblity of profit, variety results in a better population of products. Eventually a winner emerges. Nothing had to change in the OS to make this happen... it's already in place with a seperation of OS and applications.
Integration could easily be made possible for all developers, but this bites into Microsofts profits. They wont open integration to other developers because it's a huge advantage for their own products.
A: So I'm starting this internet company.
C: Oh yeah, well you better have a really good name for it. Something to stick in people heads.
A: Oh I do, I'm really excited about it.
C: What is it?
A: Yahoo!
C: So you're excited, so what's the name.
A: No, that's the name.
C: What's the name?
A: Yahoo!
C: I can't tell it's exciting, what's the name!
A: I just told you the name.
C: Why can't you just tell me the name.
A: Yahoo!
C: You can't be serious.
A: I'm not, that's someone else.
C: That's not what I'm asking!
As I understood his comments, he was only pointing it out that Apple is all to happy to take input from the community, but doesn't allow the same community the freedom of artistic expression.
Artistic freedom would be inventing your own theme that was as creative and unique as Aqua, not implimenting a copy of someone else's creative content on another system.
Most of the replies seem to have missed my point, so I'll follow up:
Creating "free" software and then suggesting that this is all that's required to help people without money are certainly missing the point. I would give away gas, but if people can't afford cars, it does little good.
So thinking outside the box for a moment, imagine you had ways to get privacy tools into the hands of the poorest of America (and perhaps the world.)
These are people who don't have extensive experience with technology, don't understand that they have no privacy on the internet, and would choose some security if it was available to them in an easy to use and understand package.
Libraries, for example, are often used by the poor to access "free" email, but if that email isn't encrypted it's not private. So helping to install PGP on library computers would be an example of helping those below the poverty line access private communication.
Privacy of communication appears to be extremely important. My private conversations should only involve the persons intended to hear them, or many ideas might never be expressed.
Privacy for citizens carries much more weight than privacy for organizations. Government agents who wish secrecy can afford many levels of secrecy to ensure private communication. Political groups, like terrorists, can also hide their actions through secrecy. Removing secure communications from normal citizens in an attempt to discover political groups is horrible doomed to only remove private speach from the citizens.
There is, however, one divide where people are lost from this equation. Currently private communication requires money. PGP is not available to the vast majority of those under the poverty line. What, if anything, are you doing to bridge this gap?
This sounds alot like JINI. There are some differences, but for the most part, it's JINI from a Microsoft angle. Interesting to read but largely irrelevant until they can make money on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Now I remember why I don't own a TV. This cable service is charging you $240 for what you could get for under $150. Phone, DSL, and cable locally only cost (added together) about $110.
This is probably just a ploy so they can lower the price and have people react positively. "Oh, we were crazy, no one will pay $240. We lowered it to $120."
For the amount they are asking, I would want to have on demand TV with no commercials.
When I try to explain open source to people who are pure capitalist, I have a hard to time explaining what can be gained. For people who are used to the concepts of Copyright and Patents, the idea that you can create value and profit from giving away ideas seems counter intuative.
How do you explain Open Source to people driven by profit in a persuasive way?
But now everyone is posting it. Not like the name I choose:
Albert Finster Jr. III
I doubt that anyone reading this will become a Dan.
I'm familiar with hapkido, and will note that it's stresses balance and flowing movement less than Aikido.
I wasn't being humourous. You're situation is not normal and most people will not have this type of injury practicing Aikido.
There are risks in all physical activities, and Aikido is no exception. Arts like Ju Jitsu have much higher injury rates, and there are "softer" and "harder" forms of Aikido.
In short, YMMV, but Aikido is a great way to help your wrists...
Take Aikido.
Aikido focuses on joint locks, which include wrist locks. After taking Aikido you will quickly have wrists that can withstand the rigors of typing. Flexible wrists are the key to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome, IMO, and Aikido is the key to flexible wrists.
Or you could just wait for speach recognition.
ZeoSync said its scientific team had succeeded on a small scale in compressing random information sequences in such a way as to allow the same data to be compressed more than 100 times over -- with no data loss. That would be at least an order of magnitude beyond current known algorithms for compacting data.
ZeoSync announced today that the "random data" they were referencing is string of all zero's. Technically this could be produced randomly and our algorythm reduces this to just a couple of characters, a 100 times compression!!
I can't seem to make him my friend. Much like the unknown comic from the Gong Show whom I thought was a nice guy, you can't really get to know him until they take the bag off their head.
I've never seen a product that couldn't be upgraded. Even if a failed company released it's software for free, smart people could make money by upgrading it to market demand. Having a code base is invaluable.
What about competition would be bad for the surviving competitors of the failed company?
Maybe it's because you're not in the industry, but CGI stands for Computer Generated Images. And the term was used before Common Gateway Interface.
I myself prefer Windows for home use (it's all about the games) and Unix (solaris8 to be specific) for work development.
What does the number of games on a system have to do with the merits of the OS? Nothing.
Would you really be singing the praises of the MacOS if it had more games? This is the kind of backwards thinking that keeps WinOS with it's market share. You're not enthralled with Windows, you're enthralled with it's marketing!
This, of course, from the same company that used to let you drag the whole OS to the trash bin and delete it...
/*.* ???
rm -r
Someone at MS marketing is a genious. How can you say no to giving free software and computers to the poorest children in the country?
I'm so disgusted by this prospect I can hardly hold back the bial.
How can Americans take this abuse? It's rediculous. This isn't a remedy to Microsoft's monopoly, it's a ploy to give the remain state's lawyers a way to exit this case while leaving MS with almost no pain. What's it really costing MS to print up some more software and give it away? Nothing. In fact it grows their business.
This whole case has stunk badly since the new administration took over and there's little hope that it will start smelling like a rose now.
Here I was thinking of different first person shooters this person could try, or even a different genre like the new Civ.
Man, if you only meant video games I could help.
Reverse the logo would be the best system. I don't think I could deal with a moving logo... would drive me nuts.
"All the photographers shooting with digital thought: "ah, a nothing shot" and deleted it."
Rediculous. This isn't a failing of the technology, it's a failing of the photographer. If a photographer deletes his pictures, he's only injuring himself... in the same way that a film photographer who throws out his film would be. You can't blame digital photography for this, you blame the lack of an archive aware photographer.
Many professional photographers have more than one camera body, sometimes for different films, but mostly for backup. If you're on an important shoot, you need backup. If you're shooting with a film camera, that's easy. If you're shooting with digital, that means some way of backing up your memory cards. Which generally means a laptop.
If you're shooting on film you have no backup. Ever. You can't shoot two film strips at once. The fact that you can make a back of digital shots is a major bonus for the digital format.
Memory sticks are lighter than film per shot. They are as easily protected (they don't spoil in light), and their major elemental foe, magnetic fields, are not normally found in jungles.
You say that photograhers take backup cameras, and I agree, even digital photographers do it.
The digital storage itself, though, perhaps ought to make us nervous.
Don't confuse digital storage with magnetic media. Storage on CD will last as long as any photo or negative.
While magnetic media will eventually fail, other digitial media can and will last as long as any other physical media.
Therefore those skilled in warfare move the enemy, and are not moved by the enemy.
-=-=-
The ultimate skill is to take up a position where you are formless.
If you are formless, the most penetrating spies will not be able to discern you, or the wisest counsels will not be able to do calculations against you.
It would be nice if there was an "AOL" client, perhaps based on linux, that was user friendly. It would never boot into windows, just into AOL. I can see a freestanding unit costing under $100 (and perhaps, eventually, given for free to subscibers) that allowed users to login and navigate AOL specifically. Such a unit would increase AOL marketshare.
So AOL could be Linux's killer app... but it wouldn't be from Linuz hackers.
Microsoft's integration on the OS level is just being used to leverage an advantage. Applauding their supposed innovation ingores the obvious problems of single providers. Let's take music as an example.
If we assumed that Microsoft would integrate music into their OS, then no other company would be foolish enough to create a music solution. It would crash and burn before the might of Microsoft. (There is the possibility that many companies might attempt to be bought out by Microsoft... but this is a different issue.)
Now with only Microsoft as a provider, we are hindered by one development path. No one will innovate because there is no profit in innovation if Microsoft can simply copy what you have with an army of programmers.
The end result is a single attempt at a solution where everyone must use Microsofts results regardless of merit.
Contrast this to a system where the OS level is simply a layer and a music solution could be created by anyone and you see quickly that competition would give a better result. With many developers taking risks for the possiblity of profit, variety results in a better population of products. Eventually a winner emerges. Nothing had to change in the OS to make this happen... it's already in place with a seperation of OS and applications.
Integration could easily be made possible for all developers, but this bites into Microsofts profits. They wont open integration to other developers because it's a huge advantage for their own products.
I hope this explains it well enough.
A: So I'm starting this internet company.
C: Oh yeah, well you better have a really good name for it. Something to stick in people heads.
A: Oh I do, I'm really excited about it.
C: What is it?
A: Yahoo!
C: So you're excited, so what's the name.
A: No, that's the name.
C: What's the name?
A: Yahoo!
C: I can't tell it's exciting, what's the name!
A: I just told you the name.
C: Why can't you just tell me the name.
A: Yahoo!
C: You can't be serious.
A: I'm not, that's someone else.
C: That's not what I'm asking!
As I understood his comments, he was only pointing it out that Apple is all to happy to take input from the community, but doesn't allow the same community the freedom of artistic expression. Artistic freedom would be inventing your own theme that was as creative and unique as Aqua, not implimenting a copy of someone else's creative content on another system.
Most of the replies seem to have missed my point, so I'll follow up:
Creating "free" software and then suggesting that this is all that's required to help people without money are certainly missing the point. I would give away gas, but if people can't afford cars, it does little good.
So thinking outside the box for a moment, imagine you had ways to get privacy tools into the hands of the poorest of America (and perhaps the world.)
These are people who don't have extensive experience with technology, don't understand that they have no privacy on the internet, and would choose some security if it was available to them in an easy to use and understand package.
Libraries, for example, are often used by the poor to access "free" email, but if that email isn't encrypted it's not private. So helping to install PGP on library computers would be an example of helping those below the poverty line access private communication.
Privacy of communication appears to be extremely important. My private conversations should only involve the persons intended to hear them, or many ideas might never be expressed.
Privacy for citizens carries much more weight than privacy for organizations. Government agents who wish secrecy can afford many levels of secrecy to ensure private communication. Political groups, like terrorists, can also hide their actions through secrecy. Removing secure communications from normal citizens in an attempt to discover political groups is horrible doomed to only remove private speach from the citizens.
There is, however, one divide where people are lost from this equation. Currently private communication requires money. PGP is not available to the vast majority of those under the poverty line. What, if anything, are you doing to bridge this gap?
This sounds alot like JINI. There are some differences, but for the most part, it's JINI from a Microsoft angle. Interesting to read but largely irrelevant until they can make money on it.